and 11; and on account of this abrupt reversing of the figure, or almost catachresis, the tense is changed, the present would contradict the figure of the preceding clause, and in its literal application would have implied a continued opposition to Christianity not consistent with facts, but the aorist indicates a definite purpose of resistance which reached its highest expression in the act of the crucifixion. Kaí, as it here connects two tenses of variant time, may with some propriety be termed a “disjunctive conjunction," equivalent to and yet; it is more adversative than in verse 15, where it joins two primary or similar tenses.

Verse 6. Εγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ· ] Here begins a parenthetical transition, intended as a caveat, perhaps, to some sect of the Baptist's followers, who were numerous in Ephesus (Acts xix, 1–3,) and were liable to entertain an undue opinion of their Master's character, (compare John iii, 25, 26.) The caution is suggested by the epithet pas, (see the same title-apparently a proverbial one-of the Baptist in John v, 35,) and confirms the acceptation given above to that term. 'Eyévero marks the introduction of a new topic; it is not to be joined in construction with ἀπεσταλμένος as a periphrase for ἀπεστάλη, the participle being here equivalent to a noun, q. d. ἀπόστολος in its primitive sense. Παρά implies his intimacy with the Divine purposes, as a special commissioner for authoritative negotiations; compare Matt. xi, 11. Ocóc is here Jehovah; without the article, because not liable to be misunderstood.

Ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης.] A construction too common to require special notice. The name of course was necessary to identify the person.

Verse 7. Οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν,] Οὗτος, in contrast with the οὗτος of verse 2. Ήλθε refers to his public ministry. Παρὰ Θεοῦ ig implied from verse 6. Maprvpía denotes the general object of his mission, and therefore has no article; it is left thus extensive for a stronger antithesis with the work of τὸ Φῶς.

Ἵνα μαρτυρήση περὶ τοῦ Φωτός·] An explanation of μαρτυρία preceding, which required limitation. IIɛpí shows that rò pc was Περί τὸ Φῶς his theme: of his mode of paprvpía a specimen is given in verse 15.

Ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσι δι' αὐτοῦ.] The preceding clause contains the object of John's mission on the part of himself, this gives the ulterior design on the part of God. Пávres primarily refers to his hearers the Jews, and morεvowo to saving faith in Christ, to which diá indicates that the purport of his communications was calculated to lead them.

Verse 8. Ovк v kкet̃vos тò p☎ç,] This is the guarding clause;

?

note the emphatic position of ovk, and the strongly demonstrative use of ἐκεῖνος =iste.

'Αλλ' ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ Φωτός· ] After ἀλλά must be supplied λve from the preceding context. Mark the strongly adversative force of ȧ22ά. The Baptist's character has just been given negatively; it is now necessary, in order to complete the sentence, to state positively, that although he was distinct from Tò us, he yet held a subordinate relation to it, which is done by an emphatic repetition of his office.

Verse 9. "Hv Tò owç] The existence of this being in the person of John has been denied, his real existence is here maintained nevertheless, and is attributed to a different personage. To construe ἦν with ἐρχόμενον as equivalent to ἤρχετο, as many eminent philologists do, would be too harsh, and also injure the meaning; the emphatic position of v moreover forbids this merging of it into a mere auxiliary. It is designed to assert the absolute and independent existence of Tò pas, in the face of the previous negation, and the clause may therefore without violence be translated directly as it stands, "The Light EXISTED nevertheless;" but the sentence may be made smooth without losing any of its force, by supplying an ellipsis after v, and making pic follow as a descriptive predicate, in some such way as this: yv [dè äλλoç] тò Qoç, "still there was another who constituted the Light." The common version, "that was the true Light," hits the meaning, (except that it suppresses the repetition of rò,) but its construction would require a different position of v.

Tò åλyðivóv,] After denying the identity of John and the Light, it was proper to show the particulars wherein they differed: the first point is a subjective one, as usual, and respects their comparative authenticity. 'Andivóv must not here be understood of mere genuineness as opposed to deception, for that would have involved a petitio principii in the Evangelist's argument. It rather denotes that intrinsic quality of nature upon which external unity depends—that veritableness of air which assures beholders à priori of a person's irrefragable truth. But it has a higher significance when viewed from the intensely subjective stand-point of "the beloved disciple,' who glances with an intuitive ken into the depths of the Redeemer's soul, and throws into the scale of evidence the Divinity that is seen to lie at the basis of his character. It is the majestic fact that Christ must needs have been the Light he was, by the very force of his own interior being's attributes, that constitutes the truthful element here intended. Other explanations of this term sink into unmeaning equivocations before this lofty conception, which may be

expressed for distinct apprehension by the emphatic rendering, he was THE Light,-such per se, the source and final cause of the Baptist's rays, transcending infinitely in dignity and importance all other teachers, "velut inter ignes Luna minores."

Ο φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον,] Here is given another distinctive trait of Christ, which is chiefly couched in πávтa; John's mission was limited to a particular generation of Jews, Christ's is universal, for the whole human race in all coming time. write, as to its Φωτίζει, tense, is expressive of the design of the Gospel, rather than its actual propagation at the time, and certainly cannot be intended to be confined to our Saviour's personal ministry. It corresponds to paívɛɩ of verse 5, and has a similar extent of application; the comparison with John does not require any reference to the light of natural reason, which would also clash with the succeeding phrase.

'Eoxóμevov εis Tòv kóσμOV.—] Our English translators and many other interpreters have mistaken the construction here, by referring ἐρχόμενον το ἄνθρωπον instead of Φῶς; but several considerations render it nearly certain that the latter is the true meaning. In the first place, this whole latter clause, under the former construction, is quite useless and even tautological, for távra äveрwπоv is as general an expression as could be desired; and, moreover, yɩvóμevov would then have been the proper term, rather than ¿oxóuɛvov, which carries the idea that this illumination is connected with the introduction of each human being into the world,—an idea that cannot have been intended. But a more conclusive argument against this view is the fact, that ò 'Eoxóuevos, is a proverbial name for the Messiah, as may be seen in Matt. xi, 3; John xii, 13, and numerous kindred passages. John himself in two instances employs precisely the full form ỏ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον, to denote the advent of the Redeemer, chap. vi, 14; xi, 27. It is true, the article is prefixed in these instances, but that is because it is used as a name to designate an individual, while here it is a collateral particular in the description of one who has been specified by other more definite terms. John, indeed, appeared among men, but it was not in a Messianic character; his birth and acts had none of the tokens of that personage, and in his doctrine he expressly disclaimed this very title (see verse 27.) This clause is added to show how it was that the pos τῶν ἀνθρώπων actually φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον—it is the mode of development. Having thus disposed of the objection likely to arise from an unjust comparison of the Baptist's mission with that of Christ, the Evangelist now proceeds with the development of this latter, which was his main topic.

Verse 10. 'Ev Tậ kóoμợ v,] For this remark the way had been FOURTH SERIES, VOL. III-25

prepared by the statements of verses 4 and 5, and it here naturally connects itself with the language of the preceding clause, the meaning of which it serves to confirm as relating to Christ, who must obviously be made the subject of v: there is also an advance in the thought; the Messiah not only entered the world but remained there for a time, ǹv—čokývwoɛ of verse 14. In kóσμos are implied also its residents.

Καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,] The relation of creatorship (verse 13) is assigned as the ground of a claim to respect and service, implied in this statement.

Καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω·] This unparalleled act of base impiety is exhibited as one of the immediate effects of the Messiah's embassy. It is an illustration of the où Kaтéλaße of verse 5. Truly said the Redeemer of his murderers, "They know not what they do!" "Eyvw is here used in the Hebraistic sense of publicly recognising with suitable sentiments, as an act of the will.

Verse 11. Εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε,] Ήλθε is synchronous with ἐρχόμεvov in verse 9, which it illustrates: note that the first advances are made by Christ. The general óopov of that verse, is here brought down to the specific idia, sc. oikńμara, home, as in chap. xix, 27; it here metaphorically represents Palestine, Christ's birth-place, residence, and exclusive scene of personal ministrations.

Καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον] This is a second illustration, still more definite and aggravated, of the strange treatment experienced by the Redeemer from his beneficiaries; his very family (idiot, the inmates of rà idia) turn him from the door! IIapà, radically signifying near, here denotes a refusal to take their kinsman close to them,-by the hand, in their arms, and to their society. His countrymen, to whom he had long been promised, disowned him when arrived, and in turn were cast off in his last memorable words of mournful despair and warning, Matt. xxiii, 38, 39:

Verse 12: "Ooot dè čλaßov avróv,] There were some exceptions to this seemingly hopeless rejection of their Messiah on the part of the Jews; dé intimates a transition to this opposite side of the picture. The fact of a contrary conduct on the part of some, is not directly stated, however, lest it should interfere with the impression of (apparently) universal indignity intended to be left upon the mind by the previous statements; it is rather implied by a statement of the privilege acquired by those who acted differently, which is here adduced in order to heighten the view of the irrationality of those ingrates: This whole account of Christ's treatment is here introduced not as a matter of history, but by way of contrasting his character with that of ordinary men; and the blessing of verse

12 is referred to in the light of a proposal on his part, its actual accomplishment being specified in verse 16. Some individuals did welcome the Saviour, the chief of whom were the Apostles and the Galilean females; the spirit of λaßov is best illustrated by that of Mary, the sister of Lazarus,—it was that of confiding love.

*Εδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι,] Εξουσία must not be taken as equivalent to duvaus, the capacity for such a relation, nor yet is it a simple тñua or possession of such a blessing; it here retains its prevalent sense of influence and importance as connected with official rank, implying all the immunities and enjoyments flowing from such a position. The station here is that of TÉKVα Oɛov, a relation of honour, authority, and security that might well be coveted by any earthly potentate, and the perquisites are such as are described in Rom. viii, 17; the rank is of such exalted character and blessedness that the Apostle elsewhere (1 John iii, 1, 2) labours in vain to find a more expressive title. Tevéovai contains the idea of investiture with this spiritual affinity, and implies that the condition is not the original one of its subjects. Tékva is destitute of the article because it is here descriptive of character, thus constituting a generic term; and also because its application is not intended to be limited to any favourite class or community, as the Jews held. The omission of the article before éžovoía is a little more peculiar, as this is here a special favour: its absence in this case seems to depend upon the common rule of New Testament usage, that where a general term is limited by some express particular application following, it may dispense with the article, (see Stuart's New Testament Grammar, § 89, (3) ;) thus the clause γενέσθαι τέκνα θεοῦ becomes equivalent to the article by particularizing ¿šovoía. A similar idiom prevails with the corresponding English words; we regularly say, "He gave them leave to do so;" although we must in strict propriety say, "He gave them the privilege of doing so," while we may say with equal elegance, either "He gave them the power (or liberty) of doing so," or "He gave them power (or liberty, or the power) to do so."

Τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ] This more particularly defines the foot; and by assigning the ground of their selection, it at once illustrates the meaning of ¤λäßov, and the prerequisite to the γενέσθαι τέκνα. By ὄνομα is here meant, by a frequent Hebraistic extension, the Divine character of Christ, and elc (as elsewhere) shows that this was the object toward which their faith was directed. There seems also to be intimated in this preposition the spiritual union of believers with their Saviour, as the tendency and effect of faith.

(Conclusion in the October Number.)